On Resistance
It seems that more than any other other review the issue of dates was at the forefront. Things were said of being from the 50's, the 80's, the 90's. Most likely it was the form of representation, the pastels and paint, rather than the content. Marcus called it a project of resistance. But in my mind I don't feel that I'm resisting as much as I'm trying to develop a more complete architecture that considers the multiplicities of architecture.
I took a few words of guidance from Lebbeus Woods, he says "Until now, I have not thought much about the idea of an architecture of resistance. Although many people might judge that my work in architecture as been nothing if not a form of resistance, I have never considered it as such. To say that you are resisting something means that you have to spend a lot of time and energy saying what that something is, in order for your resistance to make sense. Too much energy flows in the wrong direction, and you usually end up strengthening the thing you want to resist. It seems to me that if architects really want to resist, the neither the idea nor the rhetoric of resistance has a place in it. These architects must take the initiative, beginning from a point of origin that precedes anything to be resisted, one deep within an idea of architecture itself. They can never think of themselves as resisters, or join resistance movements, or preach resistance. Rather ( and this is the hard part of resistance) they must create an independent idea of both architecture and the world."
It's this ' the independent idea of the architecture and the world', perhaps the world is the one a make. The independent world of fiction that I create for myself, one that gets back to the very root of what makes architecture what it is.
